On 6/8/2022 4:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> How about creationToken? That communicates that we don't really care >> what the number is as long as it comes from an increasing sequence >> controlled by the bundle provider. > > Is it important for the clients that this value is tied to creation > time? I am trying to come up with a word like "serial" that makes > it clear that the values have no meaning other than that they are > always growing in one direction to suggest as a replacement, but > failing to find a good one. The word should probably not have > any connotation that they must be consecutive, but "serial" numbers > are usually dense. > >>> Another thing I noticed. The above scheme makes it impossible to >>> have <id> that happens to be "list". I think the variables that >>> apply to the entire list should be given two-level names, i.e. >>> >>> [bundle] >>> version = 1 >>> mode = all >>> heuristic = timestamp >>> [bundle "2022-02-09-1644442631-daily"] >>> uri = ... >> >> This then means that <id> can't be "version", "mode", or "heuristic", >> or any other possible key that we use in the future, right? > > Left ;-). > > Two-level variable names and three-level variable names live > completely in a separate namespace (there is no D/F conflict). > > [bundle] > version = 1 > [bundle "version"] > url = ... > mode = ... > > is perfectly legit. Then I stand corrected. For some reason I thought this would cause a problem, but I must have messed something _else_ up in the process of testing it. Thanks, -Stolee
